PAROUSIA – Jesus’ Second COMING or PRESENCE?

[Berean]

What does the Greek word PAROUSIA mean. It is used to refer to Jesus second PRESENCE. Or should it be second COMING? Let’s take a look.

VINE’S EXPOSITIY DICTIONARY
COMING (NOUN)
3. parousia ^3952^, lit., “a presence,” para, “with,” and ousia, “being” (from eimi, “to be”), denotes both an “arrival” and a consequent “presence with.” For instance, in a papyrus letter a lady speaks of the necessity of her parousia in a place in order to attend to matters relating to her property there. Paul speaks of his parousia in Philippi, <Phil. 2:12> (in contrast to his apousia, “his absence”; see ABSENCE). Other words denote “the arrival” (see eisodos and eleusis, above). Parousia is used to describe the presence of Christ with His disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration, <2 Pet. 1:16>. When used of the return of Christ, at the rapture of the church, it signifies, not merely His momentary “coming” for His saints, but His presence with them from that moment until His revelation and manifestation to the world. In some passages the word gives prominence to the beginning of that period, the course of the period being implied, <1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Thes. 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thes. 2:1; Jas. 5:7-8; 2 Pet. 3:4>. In some, the course is prominent, <Matt. 24:3, 37; 1 Thes. 3:13; 1 John 2:28>; in others the conclusion of the period, <Matt. 24:27; 2 Thes. 2:8>.
(from Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words)
(Copyright (C) 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

Notice how Vines says that the word Parousia “denotes both an ‘arrival’ and a consequent ‘presence with.’” If someone has “arrived,” they are “present.” The word “arrival” does not denote “coming” as in the statement “I am coming.” It denotes the beginning of a presence as in the statement “I have arrived.”

Vines clarifies this point by stating that “In some passages the word gives prominence to the beginning of that period, the course of the period being implied

Quoting from page 271 of Rotherham’s Appendix it says, “In this edition the word parousia is uniformly rendered ‘presence’ (‘coming,’ as a representative of this word, being set aside). The original term occurs twenty-four times in the N.T…The sense of ‘presence’ is so plainly shown by the contrast with ‘absence’ (implied in 2 Cor. 10:10, and expressed in Phil. 2:12) that the question naturally arises, – Why not always so render it? The more so, inasmuch as there is in 2 Peter 1:16 also, a peculiar fitness in our English word ‘presence.’ This passage, it will be remembered, relates to our Lord’s transformation upon the Mount. The wonderful manifestation there made was a display and sample of ‘presence’ rather than of ‘coming.’ The Lord was already there; and, being there, he was transformed (cp. Matt. 17:2,n.) and the ‘majesty’ of his glorified person was then disclosed. His bodily ‘presence’ was one which implied and exerted ‘power’; so that ‘power and presence’ go excellently well together – the ‘power’ befitting such a ‘presence’; and the three favoured disciples were at one and the same moment witnesses of both.”

“Harry Rimmer (D.D., Sc.D.), who was styled “Fundamentalism’s outstanding spokesman” until his death, admitted that the word parousia meant personal presence. In his book, The Coming King, he observed that the Greek word parousia is used 13 time in describing the return of Christ and not once does it have the thought of “coming.”

There are many times when the word parousia is used in the New Testament, but there are only six times when it does not refer to Christ’s 2nd Presence. Notice in every verse quoted, only presence makes sense, not coming. Even if you use the word “Arrival” it means it in the sense of “already having arrived,” not “on the way.”

1 Corinthians 16:17 (KJV) “I am glad of the coming [presence] of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus: for that which was lacking on your part they have supplied.”

2 Corinthians 7:6 (KJV) “Nevertheless God, that comforteth those that are cast down, comforted us by the coming [presence] of Titus;”

2 Corinthians 10:10 (KJV) “For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible.”

Philippians 1:26 (KJV) “That your rejoicing may be more abundant in Jesus Christ for me by my coming to you again. [In other words, you will rejoice when I am present with you again.]”

Philippians 2:12 (KJV) “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. (KJV) [Contrast of “presence” and “absence” is clear]”

2 Peter 1:16-18 (KJV) “16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming [presence] of our Lord Jesus Christ [on the Mount of Transfiguration], but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.”

In every case here the word parousia means “presence,” not “coming” (as in “on the way”). Try putting the thought of “on the way” and “not yet present” in any of the verses above and it does not work.

Taking the Bible’s usage of the word parousia to establish its meaning, It would be difficult to honestly translate this word any other way than “presence.”

 

[ewq1938]

A Coming is an arrival so presence or similar words are fine as long as it is understood that the first coming was a physical presence/arrival, and the second will be the same, a physical return of Jesus.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What does the Greek word PAROUSIA mean. It is used to refer to Jesus second PRESENCE. Or should it be second COMING? Let’s take a look.

I don't know what your point is in this thread, but scripture teaches that His future parousia is associated directly with His second coming. Some try to make His parousia and His second coming two completely separate events, but that is not the case.

Matthew 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together. 29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

In verse 27, the word "coming" is translated from the Greek word "parousia". In verse 30 the word "coming" is translated from the Greek word "erchomai" which is used several other times in the Olivet Discourse as well. As can be seen in the passage above, His future "parousia" is directly linked to His second coming ("erchomaia"), so there is no basis for seeing those as being separate events as people who believe in a pre-trib rapture do.

 

[grafted branch]

I don't know what your point is in this thread, but scripture teaches that His future parousia is associated directly with His second coming. Some try to make His parousia and His second coming two completely separate events, but that is not the case.

Matthew 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together. 29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

In verse 27, the word "coming" is translated from the Greek word "parousia". In verse 30 the word "coming" is translated from the Greek word "erchomai" which is used several other times in the Olivet Discourse as well. As can be seen in the passage above, His future "parousia" is directly linked to His second coming ("erchomaia"), so there is no basis for seeing those as being separate events as people who believe in a pre-trib rapture do.

I don’t know what the point of the OP is either, but he left out 2 Thessalonians 2:9.

2 Thessalonians 2:9 Even him, whose coming <3952> parousia is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

Maybe he’s going to try to prove a physical future Antichrist once people agree with the OP?

 

[The PuP]

What does the Greek word PAROUSIA mean. It is used to refer to Jesus second PRESENCE. Or should it be second COMING? Let’s take a look.

VINE’S EXPOSITIY DICTIONARY
COMING (NOUN)
3. parousia ^3952^, lit., “a presence,” para, “with,” and ousia, “being” (from eimi, “to be”), denotes both an “arrival” and a consequent “presence with.” For instance, in a papyrus letter a lady speaks of the necessity of her parousia in a place in order to attend to matters relating to her property there. Paul speaks of his parousia in Philippi, <Phil. 2:12> (in contrast to his apousia, “his absence”; see ABSENCE). Other words denote “the arrival” (see eisodos and eleusis, above). Parousia is used to describe the presence of Christ with His disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration, <2 Pet. 1:16>. When used of the return of Christ, at the rapture of the church, it signifies, not merely His momentary “coming” for His saints, but His presence with them from that moment until His revelation and manifestation to the world. In some passages the word gives prominence to the beginning of that period, the course of the period being implied, <1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Thes. 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thes. 2:1; Jas. 5:7-8; 2 Pet. 3:4>. In some, the course is prominent, <Matt. 24:3, 37; 1 Thes. 3:13; 1 John 2:28>; in others the conclusion of the period, <Matt. 24:27; 2 Thes. 2:8>.
(from Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words)
(Copyright (C) 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

Notice how Vines says that the word Parousia “denotes both an ‘arrival’ and a consequent ‘presence with.’” If someone has “arrived,” they are “present.” The word “arrival” does not denote “coming” as in the statement “I am coming.” It denotes the beginning of a presence as in the statement “I have arrived.”

Vines clarifies this point by stating that “In some passages the word gives prominence to the beginning of that period, the course of the period being implied

Quoting from page 271 of Rotherham’s Appendix it says, “In this edition the word parousia is uniformly rendered ‘presence’ (‘coming,’ as a representative of this word, being set aside). The original term occurs twenty-four times in the N.T…The sense of ‘presence’ is so plainly shown by the contrast with ‘absence’ (implied in 2 Cor. 10:10, and expressed in Phil. 2:12) that the question naturally arises, – Why not always so render it? The more so, inasmuch as there is in 2 Peter 1:16 also, a peculiar fitness in our English word ‘presence.’ This passage, it will be remembered, relates to our Lord’s transformation upon the Mount. The wonderful manifestation there made was a display and sample of ‘presence’ rather than of ‘coming.’ The Lord was already there; and, being there, he was transformed (cp. Matt. 17:2,n.) and the ‘majesty’ of his glorified person was then disclosed. His bodily ‘presence’ was one which implied and exerted ‘power’; so that ‘power and presence’ go excellently well together – the ‘power’ befitting such a ‘presence’; and the three favoured disciples were at one and the same moment witnesses of both.”

“Harry Rimmer (D.D., Sc.D.), who was styled “Fundamentalism’s outstanding spokesman” until his death, admitted that the word parousia meant personal presence. In his book, The Coming King, he observed that the Greek word parousia is used 13 time in describing the return of Christ and not once does it have the thought of “coming.”

There are many times when the word parousia is used in the New Testament, but there are only six times when it does not refer to Christ’s 2nd Presence. Notice in every verse quoted, only presence makes sense, not coming. Even if you use the word “Arrival” it means it in the sense of “already having arrived,” not “on the way.”

1 Corinthians 16:17 (KJV) “I am glad of the coming [presence] of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus: for that which was lacking on your part they have supplied.”

2 Corinthians 7:6 (KJV) “Nevertheless God, that comforteth those that are cast down, comforted us by the coming [presence] of Titus;”

2 Corinthians 10:10 (KJV) “For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible.”

Philippians 1:26 (KJV) “That your rejoicing may be more abundant in Jesus Christ for me by my coming to you again. [In other words, you will rejoice when I am present with you again.]”

Philippians 2:12 (KJV) “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. (KJV) [Contrast of “presence” and “absence” is clear]”

2 Peter 1:16-18 (KJV) “16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming [presence] of our Lord Jesus Christ [on the Mount of Transfiguration], but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.”

In every case here the word parousia means “presence,” not “coming” (as in “on the way”). Try putting the thought of “on the way” and “not yet present” in any of the verses above and it does not work.

Taking the Bible’s usage of the word parousia to establish its meaning, It would be difficult to honestly translate this word any other way than “presence.”

I agree with most every thing that you wrote here (lol, especially the scriptures). But let me give you a scripture that transcends (is contrary to) most all eschatological viewpoints that would deepen all understandings if they could just grasp it. That is Zech 14. THAT is the real parousia. There are various scriptures that can be tied to it... that I won't give at this time. But let me give you one.

BEFORE Jesus ever "... began to teach his disciples about his forthcoming death burial AND resurrection, he told them that he would spend three days and nights in the heart of the earth. Where is the heart of the earth? It's Jerusalem! Eze. 5:5. Jesus will leave heaven with the opening of the 7th Seal and come to Jerusalem. 72 hours later (3 days, 3 nights) he will ascend to heaven with the saints (with clouds of heavens glory) and return to the Father.
Be Blessed
The PuP

 

[Berean]

A Coming is an arrival so presence or similar words are fine as long as it is understood that the first coming was a physical presence/arrival, and the second will be the same, a physical return of Jesus.

Before he left this earth Jesus stated in John 14:19 - “A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also."

Jesus said the world would not see him, but his disciples would. So what's the thought? The general lesson is that only those who receive a spiritual resurrection will see Jesus, and they will see him as he is (1 John 3:2). But what was the thought back there at the time Jesus uttered those words?

“A little while longer and the world will see Me no more.” It's true that from the time Jesus was crucified and buried, the world saw him no more. However, there is a dispensational aspect. When Jesus was raised a spirit being, he appeared (that is, materialized) on and off for 40 days. The disciples did see him, but he did not appear as they had known him previously. Jesus was saying in verse 19, “I must absent myself for a little while, but I will be back. Before I truly leave you and the Holy Spirit comes, you will see me for a brief interlude.” When Jesus appeared in different forms during the 40 days, the disciples recognized him by the characteristic mannerisms and/or words he used. For that brief period of time, they heard his voice and could even touch him—something his followers have not been able to do down through the age.

God permitted Jesus to materialize during the 40 days, but these materializations were an exception to the rule. If we consider all the times Jesus appeared to the disciples during the 40 days, and if we could calculate the hours exactly, the total would probably be less than a third or a fourth of one day because he disappeared for long periods of time after only brief appearances. He appeared just often enough and long enough to convince the disciples of his resurrection. The longest conversation was on the way to Emmaus.

To a large extent, our faith in Jesus is based upon the testimony of the apostles. They saw and talked with him both before and after his resurrection. John says, “We know this one came from God. We saw him. We touched him. We conversed with him” (1 John 1:1). The Holy Spirit helps us to know that the things recorded about Jesus are true. Through the apostles’ eyes, we see Jesus.

 

[Berean]

I don’t know what the point of the OP is either, but he left out 2 Thessalonians 2:9.

The major difference between us is that most Christians see the signs of Matthew 24, 25 as a sign of the nearness of Jesus' physical return. I see Matthew 24, 25 as a sign that he is here (present) and only those who are awake can see it.

2 Thessalonians 2:9 Even him, whose coming <3952> parousia is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

Maybe he’s going to try to prove a physical future Antichrist once people agree with the OP?

The words “even him,” supplied by the translators, should be deleted to make Paul’s intended meaning clearer. Verse 8 talks about Jesus’ “coming”: “whom the Lord [Jesus] ... shall destroy with the brightness of his coming [presence].” Verse 9 continues with the same thought: “whose [Jesus’] coming [presence] is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.” Just as Satan, the god of this world, is present but invisible as a spirit being, so Jesus can be present but unseen at his Second Advent because he is an invisible spirit being. The Greek word rendered “after” can be variously translated. The correct thought is that Jesus’ Second Presence is “accompanied by [or with] the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.”

The word “after” is important to consider here lest we think it means that Jesus’ Second Presence will occur afterwards, that is, after Satan’s power, signs, and lying wonders cease. Instead, at the very least, Jesus’ presence is during the working of the Adversary. More likely, however, Satan will manifest even greater and stronger delusions with all power, signs, and lying wonders in the near future.

 

[Berean]

72 hours later (3 days, 3 nights) he will ascend to heaven with the saints (with clouds of heavens glory) and return to the Father.

And who exactly are these "saints"?

 

[grafted branch]

The major difference between us is that most Christians see the signs of Matthew 24, 25 as a sign of the nearness of Jesus' physical return. I see Matthew 24, 25 as a sign that he is here (present) and only those who are awake can see it.


The words “even him,” supplied by the translators, should be deleted to make Paul’s intended meaning clearer. Verse 8 talks about Jesus’ “coming”: “whom the Lord [Jesus] ... shall destroy with the brightness of his coming [presence].” Verse 9 continues with the same thought: “whose [Jesus’] coming [presence] is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.” Just as Satan, the god of this world, is present but invisible as a spirit being, so Jesus can be present but unseen at his Second Advent because he is an invisible spirit being. The Greek word rendered “after” can be variously translated. The correct thought is that Jesus’ Second Presence is “accompanied by [or with] the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.”

The word “after” is important to consider here lest we think it means that Jesus’ Second Presence will occur afterwards, that is, after Satan’s power, signs, and lying wonders cease. Instead, at the very least, Jesus’ presence is during the working of the Adversary. More likely, however, Satan will manifest even greater and stronger delusions with all power, signs, and lying wonders in the near future.

Ok, let me ask you this … in 2 Thessalonians 2:8 we have that Wicked shall be revealed who shall be destroyed by the brightness of His coming. It appears you are saying that His coming or presence is here right now, and also saying that Satan will manifest greater in the near future.

If His coming or presence has already happened how is it that Satan hasn’t been destroyed yet? Are “that Wicked” and Satan different entities? Has “that Wicked” been revealed already?

 

[ewq1938]

Before he left this earth Jesus stated in John 14:19 - “A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also."

Jesus said the world would not see him, but his disciples would. So what's the thought? The general lesson is that only those who receive a spiritual resurrection will see Jesus, and they will see him as he is (1 John 3:2).

Unsaved people could see Jesus so that isn't what he is talking about. You said, "Before he left this earth" so leaving the Earth is a physical thing. He was talking about literal seeing VS not seeing.

 

[Davidpt]

Are “that Wicked” and Satan different entities?

Obviously, they are. All one has to do is look up the Greek word used for 'that wicked' and it is crystal clear that that same Greek word is never applied to satan.

anomos
an'-om-os
from a - a 1 (as a negative particle) and nomoV - nomos 3551; lawless, i.e. (negatively) not subject to (the Jewish) law; (by implication, a Gentile), or (positively) wicked:--without law, lawless, transgressor, unlawful, wicked.

Mark 15:28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors(anomos)

Luke 22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors(anomos) : for the things concerning me have an end.

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked(anomos) hands have crucified and slain

Romans 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law(anomos) shall also perish without law(anomos) : and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law



For example. Compare the following.

2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

Revelation 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.


No one in Revelation 19:21 is meaning satan. Clearly, this in 2 Thessalonians 2:8--shall consume with the spirit of his mouth--is meaning this in Revelation 19:21---were slain with the sword of him---which sword proceeded out of his mouth


Only someone with doctrinal bias would apply anomos to satan. anomos is being applied to humans and the law not satan.

 

[Davidpt]

What does the Greek word PAROUSIA mean. It is used to refer to Jesus second PRESENCE. Or should it be second COMING? Let’s take a look.

VINE’S EXPOSITIY DICTIONARY
COMING (NOUN)
3. parousia ^3952^, lit., “a presence,” para, “with,” and ousia, “being” (from eimi, “to be”), denotes both an “arrival” and a consequent “presence with.” For instance, in a papyrus letter a lady speaks of the necessity of her parousia in a place in order to attend to matters relating to her property there. Paul speaks of his parousia in Philippi, <Phil. 2:12> (in contrast to his apousia, “his absence”; see ABSENCE). Other words denote “the arrival” (see eisodos and eleusis, above). Parousia is used to describe the presence of Christ with His disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration, <2 Pet. 1:16>. When used of the return of Christ, at the rapture of the church, it signifies, not merely His momentary “coming” for His saints, but His presence with them from that moment until His revelation and manifestation to the world. In some passages the word gives prominence to the beginning of that period, the course of the period being implied, <1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Thes. 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thes. 2:1; Jas. 5:7-8; 2 Pet. 3:4>. In some, the course is prominent, <Matt. 24:3, 37; 1 Thes. 3:13; 1 John 2:28>; in others the conclusion of the period, <Matt. 24:27; 2 Thes. 2:8>.
(from Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words)
(Copyright (C) 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

Notice how Vines says that the word Parousia “denotes both an ‘arrival’ and a consequent ‘presence with.’” If someone has “arrived,” they are “present.” The word “arrival” does not denote “coming” as in the statement “I am coming.” It denotes the beginning of a presence as in the statement “I have arrived.”

Vines clarifies this point by stating that “In some passages the word gives prominence to the beginning of that period, the course of the period being implied

Quoting from page 271 of Rotherham’s Appendix it says, “In this edition the word parousia is uniformly rendered ‘presence’ (‘coming,’ as a representative of this word, being set aside). The original term occurs twenty-four times in the N.T…The sense of ‘presence’ is so plainly shown by the contrast with ‘absence’ (implied in 2 Cor. 10:10, and expressed in Phil. 2:12) that the question naturally arises, – Why not always so render it? The more so, inasmuch as there is in 2 Peter 1:16 also, a peculiar fitness in our English word ‘presence.’ This passage, it will be remembered, relates to our Lord’s transformation upon the Mount. The wonderful manifestation there made was a display and sample of ‘presence’ rather than of ‘coming.’ The Lord was already there; and, being there, he was transformed (cp. Matt. 17:2,n.) and the ‘majesty’ of his glorified person was then disclosed. His bodily ‘presence’ was one which implied and exerted ‘power’; so that ‘power and presence’ go excellently well together – the ‘power’ befitting such a ‘presence’; and the three favoured disciples were at one and the same moment witnesses of both.”

“Harry Rimmer (D.D., Sc.D.), who was styled “Fundamentalism’s outstanding spokesman” until his death, admitted that the word parousia meant personal presence. In his book, The Coming King, he observed that the Greek word parousia is used 13 time in describing the return of Christ and not once does it have the thought of “coming.”

There are many times when the word parousia is used in the New Testament, but there are only six times when it does not refer to Christ’s 2nd Presence. Notice in every verse quoted, only presence makes sense, not coming. Even if you use the word “Arrival” it means it in the sense of “already having arrived,” not “on the way.”

1 Corinthians 16:17 (KJV) “I am glad of the coming [presence] of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus: for that which was lacking on your part they have supplied.”

2 Corinthians 7:6 (KJV) “Nevertheless God, that comforteth those that are cast down, comforted us by the coming [presence] of Titus;”

2 Corinthians 10:10 (KJV) “For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible.”

Philippians 1:26 (KJV) “That your rejoicing may be more abundant in Jesus Christ for me by my coming to you again. [In other words, you will rejoice when I am present with you again.]”

Philippians 2:12 (KJV) “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. (KJV) [Contrast of “presence” and “absence” is clear]”

2 Peter 1:16-18 (KJV) “16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming [presence] of our Lord Jesus Christ [on the Mount of Transfiguration], but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.”

In every case here the word parousia means “presence,” not “coming” (as in “on the way”). Try putting the thought of “on the way” and “not yet present” in any of the verses above and it does not work.

Taking the Bible’s usage of the word parousia to establish its meaning, It would be difficult to honestly translate this word any other way than “presence.”

I don't understand what you are arguing in the OP? It seems to me, in order for Christ to come, it obviously involves His presence. His literal bodily presence.

Matthew 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming(parousia) of the Son of man be.


Take this verse, for example. The context preceding this verse involves false christs, etc, thus not the real Christ. How then can verse 27 be meaning the real Christ unless His coming will be involving His bodily presence? Unless it does, we may as well take the one meant in verse 27 to be more of the same that we see pertaining to verses 23-26, which would be absurd to do so. Not that anybody does. But why not, if one doesn't take the one meant in verse 27 to be pertaining to a coming involving His bodily presence? Keeping in mind, meaning His bodily presence, not a spiritual unseen presence instead.

 

[grafted branch]

Obviously, they are. All one has to do is look up the Greek word used for 'that wicked' and it is crystal clear that that same Greek word is never applied to satan.

anomos
an'-om-os
from a - a 1 (as a negative particle) and nomoV - nomos 3551; lawless, i.e. (negatively) not subject to (the Jewish) law; (by implication, a Gentile), or (positively) wicked:--without law, lawless, transgressor, unlawful, wicked.

Mark 15:28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors(anomos)

Luke 22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors(anomos) : for the things concerning me have an end.

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked(anomos) hands have crucified and slain

Romans 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law(anomos) shall also perish without law(anomos) : and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law



For example. Compare the following.

2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

Revelation 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.


No one in Revelation 19:21 is meaning satan. Clearly, this in 2 Thessalonians 2:8--shall consume with the spirit of his mouth--is meaning this in Revelation 19:21---were slain with the sword of him---which sword proceeded out of his mouth


Only someone with doctrinal bias would apply anomos to satan. anomos is being applied to humans and the law not satan.

I agree with your assessment, but 2 Thessalonians 2:8 has the statement “then shall that Wicked be revealed”.

Since you know what “that Wicked” is, then would you also say that “that Wicked” has already been revealed?

 

[Davidpt]

I agree with your assessment, but 2 Thessalonians 2:8 has the statement “then shall that Wicked be revealed”.

Since you know what “that Wicked” is, then would you also say that “that Wicked” has already been revealed?

Doesn't Revelation 19 tell us when that Wicked is revealed? If Revelation 19 involves Christ's bodily second coming like many of us tend to believe, and that 2 Thessalonians 2:8 is pertaining to Revelation 19:21, how then can that Wicked already be revealed if 2nd 2nd coming has to happen first? Clearly, the bodily 2nd coming of Christ has not happened yet.

On 2nd thought, maybe this in verse 8---- And then shall that Wicked be revealed---is being applied to verse 7, which means verse 7 is fulfilled before the coming meant in verse 8 is fulfilled. And one way that Wicked is revealed is via the falling away pertaining to verse 3. Keeping in mind that the falling away precedes the coming meant in verse 1 and 8.

On a different note since this thread is involving Parousia, what are your thoughts on the following?

2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming(parousia)
9 Even him, whose coming(parousia)is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,


Whose coming(parousia) in verse 9 do you think that should be applied to? The one meant in verse 8, the Lord, or the one meant in verse 4?

2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming(parousia)
9 Even him, whose coming(parousia)is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

BTW, I tend to think this in verse 3---except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition--should be interpreted in light of the following, thus not once saved always saved.

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled

Though, Judas is meant here, that means he is a type for the son of perdition meant in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, thus involves falling away, thus involves not once saved always saved.

 

[grafted branch]

Whose coming(parousia) in verse 9 do you think that should be applied to? The one meant in verse 8, the Lord, or the one meant in verse 4?

2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming(parousia)
9 Even him, whose coming(parousia)is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

I think the parousia in 2 Thessalonians 2:8 might not be the Lord’s parousia but could be the parousia of “that Wicked”.

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

This verse can fit the description of a parousia.

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

In this verse they are manifest, <5319> to reveal, make known, make clear. This can be the brightness of their coming in 2 Thessalonians 2:8.

I realize that the parousia in 2 Thessalonians 2:8 can be Jesus’s, but I wouldn’t place a 100% probability on that.

 

[Davidpt]

I think the parousia in 2 Thessalonians 2:8 might not be the Lord’s parousia but could be the parousia of “that Wicked”.

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

This verse can fit the description of a parousia.

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

In this verse they are manifest, <5319> to reveal, make known, make clear. This can be the brightness of their coming in 2 Thessalonians 2:8.

I realize that the parousia in 2 Thessalonians 2:8 can be Jesus’s, but I wouldn’t place a 100% probability on that.

I don't know if it matters in this case, but 1 John 2:18 doesn't use parousia, it uses erchomai.

The theme in both 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians pertaining to parousia is in regards to Christ's coming. It then stands to reason, in my mind anyway, the coming meant in verse 9 is Christ's coming and that it it is after the workings of satan with all lying wonders is fulfilled first. That could be one way to look at it.

But even so, I admit, some do convincingly argue that the one in verse 4 is meant. I haven't fully made up my mind one way or the other then.

 

[grafted branch]

I don't know if it matters in this case, but 1 John 2:18 doesn't use parousia, it uses erchomai.

The theme in both 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians pertaining to parousia is in regards to Christ's coming. It then stands to reason, in my mind anyway, the coming meant in verse 9 is Christ's coming and that it it is after the workings of satan with all lying wonders is fulfilled first. That could be one way to look at it.

But even so, I admit, some do convincingly argue that the one in verse 4 is meant. I haven't fully made up my mind one way or the other then.

Yes, I see that. If the word parousia was used in that verse there would be no doubt for us today. What ever that event was it was something that was revealed to them in that day.

Unless a case can be made for another revealing that took place approx 1,950 years ago, I would say the 2 Thessalonians 2:8 Wicked has already been revealed.

 

[The PuP]

And who exactly are these "saints"?

They are those (of the church) who belong to Christ at his parousia. Just from the reading of Zech 14:5, it is not obvious who these saints are. There are many pieces of the puzzle of scripture that must be put together to reach that conclusion. To go into the details of which would be a very long discourse. So, without going into that long discourse, let me just give you some of the teaching points of scripture that lead me to that conclusion. They are:
1. The rapture of 1Thess4 is not the same as when the saints as and prophets inherit the kingdom of 1Cor 15.
2. The rapture of 1Thess4 is not an all in one event. It is bookmarked by the 3 days and nights that Jesus spends on Jerusalem.
3. Jesus is given the kingdom (Dan 7:14) when he (and the saints... the church...) is brought before the Father.
4. The saints and prophets (Rev 11:15) are resurrected to inherit the kingdom on earth. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and many from the east and west, while the elect children of Israel are kicked out.
5. Those who are given the resurrection of life, no longer bear children nor marry.
6. The restoration of the kingdom (of God on earth) will have saints capable of multiplying and having children, Jer 30. They will not have immortal bodies.
7. Jerusalem will be destroyed (again) at the parousia.
Be Blessed
The PuP

 

[Davidpt]

Yes, I see that. If the word parousia was used in that verse there would be no doubt for us today. What ever that event was it was something that was revealed to them in that day.

Unless a case can be made for another revealing that took place approx 1,950 years ago, I would say the 2 Thessalonians 2:8 Wicked has already been revealed.

Like I indicated per that on 2nd thought in that other post I made, you could be correct. The more I think about it though, the man of sin is revealed before Christ comes, but that it is His coming that destroys that Wicked. Instead of His coming reveals that Wicked.

 

[grafted branch]

Like I indicated per that on 2nd thought in that other post I made, you could be correct. The more I think about it though, the man of sin is revealed before Christ comes, but that it is His coming that destroys that Wicked. Instead of His coming reveals that Wicked.

Well, that’s a good point. From 2 Thessalonians 2:8 we know that Wicked is consumed with the spirit of His mouth. That Wicked is also destroyed with the brightness of his(or His) coming. I think we all would agree that both Jesus and that Wicked come at approximately the same time, maybe 3.5 or 7 years apart depending on one’s view.

It’s not clear if that consuming or destroying is meant as a period of a few years or if it’s meant as a single moment in time. I would say this is a point that makes it difficult to discern exactly whose parousia is in view.